Grievance Group Faults Lawyer

Conduct In 2 Cases Leads To Reprimand

The state agency that polices lawyers has found that a Clinton lawyer violated the professional code of conduct when he failed to file a lien on behalf of a client who had paid him $550.

In another case, the Statewide Grievance Committee found that David J. Peska didn't provide a written fee contract to a client in a criminal case, and violated professional codes of conduct in the process.

The committee decided to reprimand Peska in the two separate cases.

Peska could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The committee investigates complaints of lawyer misconduct. If the committee finds there is misconduct, it can recommend that a Superior Court judge suspend or disbar the lawyer. The least serious punishment is a reprimand.

Before the committee makes a decision, a local board, consisting of two lawyers and a nonlawyer, reviews the complaint and makes a recommendation to the statewide board.

In Peska's case, the executive board last week concurred with the local board's decision.

The first complaint dated to 1989. The complainant, Greg Gibson, paid Peska $250 to file a mechanic's lien. Gibson paid Peska an additional $300 to take the matter to court, the decision states.

Peska, however, failed to follow through on the case, including neglecting to file the lien, the complaint said. He also did not return Gibson's calls regarding the case, according to the decision. Peska told the grievance committee that he had filed the lien, although the board found no evidence of this, the decision states.

The review board wrote that it could not confirm whether Peska had filed the lien. If he did file it, the three members also faulted Peska for not following through to be certain the lien had been served.

In the criminal case, Peska charged Sylvia Tomsky, the mother of a defendant, $750 to represent her son. Peska told the defendant to plead guilty to a harassment charge because the prosecutor was not going to dismiss the case, the decision states.

Peska told Tomsky that he would try to get the 120-day sentence reduced, but it would cost $200. Eventually, Peska told Tomsky he couldn't get the sentence reduced, the decision states.

However, Tomsky had written Peska a check for $200. Peska endorsed the check and gave it to a woman who had referred Tomsky to Peska. The board questioned Peska regarding whether the $200 was a referral fee or for legal work as had been represented by Peska.

Peska told the board that the money was for legal work, and he signed over the check because he owed the woman money in a different matter.

Although the review board could not conclude whether it was a referral fee, the panel stated that Peska should have provided a written agreement to show the basis for his fees in the criminal case.